2000 ~ 2003 was the worst weak era ever in tennis history after 1980

[skypadq]

2002 Australian Open – Men's singles - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I really confident to saying 2000 ~ 2003 was the worst weak era ever in tennis history ever
even freaking thomas johansson able to win grand slam is really crazy
who is this guy ?
why marat lost this guy ?
what is good about thomas johansson ?

and albert costa won 2002 RG too
2002 slam was worst
2002 AO and 2002 RG was really weak slam ever

 

[aldeayeah]

Maybe, it was definitely a transitional period in more ways than one.

It was fun to watch though.

 

[skypadq]

It was fun to watch though.

what is fun about ?

 

[aldeayeah]

what is fun about ?

Variety. The gradual rise of the poly topspin game combined with the declining but formidable remains of the 90s tennis.

Sure, everyone was inconsistent, had short peaks, or got injured, but it was still fun. I loved me some Hewitt / Safin / Oldgassi. And the clay specialists weren't bad either. And Sampras, Rafter, Goran, etc were still around.

 

[Jonesy]

So Fed saved us from what could be an even weaker era.

 

[brc444]

I think it was interesting time period to watch tennis — the tale end of the Sampras, Agassi, and Rafter careers and the rise of Federer, Safin, Hewitt, and Roddick careers (to name a few).

 

[mike danny]

The period since mid 2016 not really any better. That's why the Big 3 are still on top.

 

[skypadq]

The period since mid 2016 not really any better. That's why the Big 3 are still on top.

that 's pretty convincing

 

[NatF]

Probably more classic matches and memorable runs in the 00-03 period than what we've had since 2016 tbh.

 

[OldschoolKIaus]

OP started watching tennis in 2017.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

1980 weak? With Borg, Mac and Connors among others in the mix? Apart from this one year is not an era.

 

[metsman]

Only 02 AO - 03 AO was really weak. Transitional era after Agassi/Sampras exit their prime, no more Goran/Guga/Rafter, and Roddick/Safin/Fed being too young, not ready, headcase, etc. Can't really see why 00-01 or the rest of 03 is weak. And really, in that entire stretch only 02 AO and RG had subpar winners (in large part due to Safin/Ferrero implosions). 00 and 01 had pretty strong slam competition and winners. 02 USO, NUFF SAID, 03 AO Agassi's level was good but field sucks (well actually it wasn't so bad but Nalbandian messed up as usual and Roddick got tired after the epic so Agassi had to do nothing). 03 RG-USO competition wasn't amazing at slams, but still decent and the level of the winners were good to great to GOAT.

The modern weak era is totally unprecedented, both the weakest ever in terms of winners and the longest ever. Nothing before this lasted more than 2 years (97-99 AO). We are on 5 and counting.

 

[daggerman]

1980 weak? With Borg, Mac and Connors among others in the mix? Apart from this one year is not an era.

I think he's saying 2000-03 was the weakest era between 1980-2020, not that 1980 was weaker than 2000-03.

 

[Aussie Darcy]

That AO sure is something.

4R:
Unseeded v #23
#11 v #7
Unseeded v unseeded
#9 v #8
#26 v unseeded
Unseeded v qualifier
#6 v unseeded
#16 v unseeded

Only 2 slam champions in the draw from the 3R. Incredibly weak.

 

[ADuck]

Only 02 AO - 03 AO was really weak. Transitional era after Agassi/Sampras exit their prime, no more Goran/Guga/Rafter, and Roddick/Safin/Fed being too young, not ready, headcase, etc. Can't really see why 00-01 or the rest of 03 is weak. And really, in that entire stretch only 02 AO and RG had subpar winners (in large part due to Safin/Ferrero implosions). 00 and 01 had pretty strong slam competition and winners. 02 USO, NUFF SAID, 03 AO Agassi's level was good but field sucks (well actually it wasn't so bad but Nalbandian messed up as usual and Roddick got tired after the epic so Agassi had to do nothing). 03 RG-USO competition wasn't amazing at slams, but still decent and the level of the winners were good to great to GOAT.

The modern weak era is totally unprecedented, both the weakest ever in terms of winners and the longest ever. Nothing before this lasted more than 2 years (97-99 AO). We are on 5 and counting.

4 I'd say. So yeah obviously tennis is dying, oh well. It just doesn't have the same level of popularity and interest as it used to which is strange actually because Federer-Nadal-Djokovic should have motivated a lot of younguns to play.

 

[BackhandDTL]

Only 02 AO - 03 AO was really weak. Transitional era after Agassi/Sampras exit their prime, no more Goran/Guga/Rafter, and Roddick/Safin/Fed being too young, not ready, headcase, etc. Can't really see why 00-01 or the rest of 03 is weak. And really, in that entire stretch only 02 AO and RG had subpar winners (in large part due to Safin/Ferrero implosions). 00 and 01 had pretty strong slam competition and winners. 02 USO, NUFF SAID, 03 AO Agassi's level was good but field sucks (well actually it wasn't so bad but Nalbandian messed up as usual and Roddick got tired after the epic so Agassi had to do nothing). 03 RG-USO competition wasn't amazing at slams, but still decent and the level of the winners were good to great to GOAT.

The modern weak era is totally unprecedented, both the weakest ever in terms of winners and the longest ever. Nothing before this lasted more than 2 years (97-99 AO). We are on 5 and counting.

15-16 vs 04-07 off of clay

what’s weaker?

 

[Nadalgaenger]

The period since mid 2016 not really any better. That's why the Big 3 are still on top.

Disagree! Big 3 three greatest players in history. 2000-2003 only had Sampras, who didn’t have a level like Big 3.

 

[Deleted member 770948]

Hewitt def. Nalbandian @ 2002 Wimbledon Final 61 63 62

 

[socallefty]

@skypadq
If your premise is true, what happened in 2003 for this weak era to suddenly end? Don’t you think it is likely that this weak era continued for another 3 or 4 years? It seemed like the game style was transitioning to the poly era with the focus moving towards heavy topspin at higher pace, but there were still many pros hanging around with lower-margin flatter shots and during this transition, a chop-shot artist cleaned up.

PS: Ok, he had a decent FH and serve also

 

[Deleted member 777746]

2002 Australian Open – Men's singles - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I really confident to saying 2000 ~ 2003 was the worst weak era ever in tennis history ever
even freaking thomas johansson able to win grand slam is really crazy
who is this guy ?
why marat lost this guy ?
what is good about thomas johansson ?

and albert costa won 2002 RG too
2002 slam was worst
2002 AO and 2002 RG was really weak slam ever

Just remember that from 2004-07, Baghdatis and Gonzales would have been slam winners if not for Fed. Roddick would have been a greater player on paper than Murray.

 

[Sport]

2002 Australian Open – Men's singles - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I really confident to saying 2000 ~ 2003 was the worst weak era ever in tennis history ever
even freaking thomas johansson able to win grand slam is really crazy
who is this guy ?
why marat lost this guy ?
what is good about thomas johansson ?

and albert costa won 2002 RG too
2002 slam was worst
2002 AO and 2002 RG was really weak slam ever

At least get informed before insulting players.

Albert Costa was a very solid clay player with a fantastic clay resume in the early 2000s. Costa won RG 2002 defeating in the final a solid player like Juan Carlos Ferrero (another RG winner and former world #1). There is nothing weak about defeating Ferrero in a RG final. And only Ferrero stopped Costa in the RG 2003 SF.

 

[mike danny]

Disagree! Big 3 three greatest players in history. 2000-2003 only had Sampras, who didn’t have a level like Big 3.

You haven't refuted my point.

 

[Deleted member 777746]

Disagree! Big 3 three greatest players in history. 2000-2003 only had Sampras, who didn’t have a level like Big 3.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

You haven't refuted my point.

The stats for the Big 3 show a level of dominance similar to any point in their careers. I just have never bought the theory that the field as a whole can magically get weak. What you DO see are voids in top 5. USO 2020 a perfect example. Thiem deserves credit for winning but I understand the critics that say it wasn’t a “legit” slam since he didn’t play anyone in Big 3.
But you can’t win if you’re Thiem. Regardless if he beats Big 3 (as he did at WTF) or wins without playing them, haters willsay field weak.

 

[mike danny]

The stats for the Big 3 show a level of dominance similar to any point in their careers. I just have never bought the theory that the field as a whole can magically get weak. What you DO see are voids in top 5. USO 2020 a perfect example. Thiem deserves credit for winning but I understand the critics that say it wasn’t a “legit” slam since he didn’t play anyone in Big 3.
But you can’t win if you’re Thiem. Regardless if he beats Big 3 (as he did at WTF) or wins without playing them, haters willsay field weak.

Them winning virtually every slam in their 30's which they coukdn't do when they were younger is a sign of a weak field.

 

[Sport]

Them winning virtually every slam in their 30's which they coukdn't do when they were younger is a sign of a weak field.

No, it is a sign of greatness, as Nadal and Djokovic are suceeding in stopping the Next Gen. The ability to stop the Next Gen is crucial in a GOAT resume for any sport.

To draw an analogy with the beatiful sport of chess, Kasparov not only defeated his older rivals (Karpov), he also succeeded in stopping the Next Gen (Anand, who is younger than Kasparov), and that is one of the reasons why Kasparov is praised by many as the chess GOAT.

In basketball, LeBron James was the NBA finals MVP this year aged 35. He stopped the Next Gen.

In football, Cristiano Ronaldo and Messi have both won the Ballon d'Or aged 33, stopping the Next Gen in that sense.

 

[mike danny]

No, it is a sign of greatness, as Nadal and Djokovic are suceeding in stopping the Next Gen. The ability to stop the Next Gen is crucial in a GOAT resume for any sport.

To draw an analogy with the beatiful sport of chess, Kasparov not only defeated his older rivals (Karpov), he also succeeded in stopping the Next Gen (Anand, who is younger than Kasparov), and that is one of the reasons why Kasparov is praised by many as the chess GOAT.

In basketball, LeBron James was the NBA finals MVP this year aged 35. He stopped the Next Gen.

In football, Cristiano Ronaldo and Messi have both won the Ballon d'Or aged 33, stopping the Next Gen in that sense.

Dude, guys like Safin, Stan, Murray and Delpo were able to take slams away from prime Big 3. No such players for the last 4 years so the Big 3 have been winning everything virtually unchallenged.

 

[Sport]

Dude, guys like Safin, Stan, Murray and Delpo were able to take slams away from prime Big 3. No such players for the last 4 years so the Big 3 have been winning everything virtually unchallenged.

Nadal and DJokovic are too good and their ability to stop the Next Gen is a sign of greatness. In every single sport, the ability to stop the Next Gen is crucial in a GOAT resume (I gave you examples from chess, basketball and football/soccer). If you can't stop the Next Gen, you ain't no GOAT.

Without Nadal and Djokovic, Thiem could already be an all-time great. In effect, without Nadal and Djokovic, Thiem could have potentially won RG 2017, RG 2018, RG 2019, USO 2018, AO 2020 and USO 2020 for a total of 6 Slams and counting. Thiem is by no means weak, Nadal and Djokovic are simply proving their GOAT worthy resume by stopping such a talented player.

 

[Milanez82]

Just remember that from 2004-07, Baghdatis and Gonzales would have been slam winners if not for Fed. Roddick would have been a greater player on paper than Murray.

Thankfully Federer prevented those attrocities from happening and rewrote history for the better

 

[mike danny]

Nadal and DJokovic are too good and their ability to stop the Next Gen is a sign of greatness. In every single sport, the ability to stop the Next Gen is crucial in a GOAT resume (I gave you examples from chess, basketball and football/soccer). If you can't stop the Next Gen, you ain't no GOAT.

Without Nadal and Djokovic, Thiem could already be an all-time great. In effect, without Nadal and Djokovic, Thiem could have potentially won RG 2017, RG 2018, RG 2019, USO 2018, AO 2020 and USO 2020 for a total of 6 Slams and counting. Thiem is by no means weak, Nadal and Djokovic are simply proving their GOAT worthy resume by stopping such a talented player.

So, nothing.

 

[Incognito]

Slam champs during that period include: Sampras, Agassi, Safin and Fed. I say, that’s pretty much some of the very best to ever play the sport.

 

[metsman]

15-16 vs 04-07 off of clay

what’s weaker?

ROFLMAO

 

[brc444]

It seems many around here respect Verdasco’s 2009 SF run and level of play at the AO but do not likewise respect the final run and level of play for Bagdhatis at the 2006 AO, Gonzalez at the 2007 AO, and Phillippousis at 2003 Wimbledon.

 

[Deleted member 777746]

Slam champs during that period include: Sampras, Agassi, Safin and Fed. I say, that’s pretty much some of the very best to ever play the sport.

shhhhhhhhhhh, we need a new narrative to cover the reality of the 04-07 Weak Era

 

[Crazy Finn]

what is fun about ?

Personally, I liked not knowing who was going to be in the Semis. It's kind of boring when you know 2-3 people who are going be in the semi-finals for every slam or major tournament..... for a decade.

 

[zagor]

The stats for the Big 3 show a level of dominance similar to any point in their careers. I just have never bought the theory that the field as a whole can magically get weak. What you DO see are voids in top 5. USO 2020 a perfect example. Thiem deserves credit for winning but I understand the critics that say it wasn’t a “legit” slam since he didn’t play anyone in Big 3.
But you can’t win if you’re Thiem. Regardless if he beats Big 3 (as he did at WTF) or wins without playing them, haters willsay field weak.

No, critics say that it wasn't a legit win because the final was frankly embarrassing in terms of level of play, it was one of the worst slam finals I've seen in my life. Yeah, he beat the big 3 at WTF but then he lost the final which has been pretty much the story of his career.

If Thiem is the best people can come up with in terms of <30 talent on tour then "big 3 are just too good" theory really doesn't hold much weight.